Well, that pretty much explains everything right there.
Sad.
I agree it is sad that some are willing to engage in simpering, self-abnegating, self-deprecating slave morality and pretenses of false modesty. Modesty is fine, if it's authentic; pretending to be modest in order to impress someone is hypocrisy. Of course, you are free to choose this if you wish, but you are not free to dismiss other perspectives willy-nilly without any cause other than your own bias and not be called on it.
I have no need to be modest about my accomplishments; I am justifiably proud of them and I will not pretend otherwise, but this is by no means the same thing as conceit or arrogance. Am I perfect? No, and I am keenly aware of that, but I also don't start prattling about things I know nothing about, nor do I go about insulting others who know more as a general principle simply because they disagree with me. If and when there is actually a logical argument presented, or empirical evidence, in support of the claim, then I'll give it due consideration. Until then, I don't have to prove my position in order to point out that his position has not been justified by anything he or you or anyone else in this thread has said.
Whether I agree or not, if no justification for the claim is offered and I don't have one myself, then it's mere assertion without sensible foundation; call it an aesthetic preference if you will. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that.
But in fact, I have asked several times for justification and have not received it, nor any alternative solution, but only the same original claim reiterated several times as if repetition is sufficient to establish truth. On the contrary, it's a fallacy (if that word is also too "big" for you, it means "incorrect inference form") known as Petitio Principii or Begging the Question. That you don't seem to understand this, and don't even care, is even sadder. Ignorance is not desirable, but it's not a vice and can be rectified. Willful ignorance, however, ...
Well, I just learned enough to no longer give a tribble as to what you think. Back to popcorn munching for me.
Not giving a tribble about what anyone else thinks is the entire problem - it's antithetical to the entire idea of communication.
It's just this bias, expertly displayed OVER and OVER again, which I commented on oh-so many posts ago that was just sad.
When someone does that, they don't want to have a conversation, they want things *their* way and reflexively shut-out others who don't agree with them.
When someone does that, they don't want to have a conversation, they want things *their* way and reflexively shut-out others who don't agree with them.
^^ This is eminently funny, coming from that 1% PvP-ers, wanting to take away from all the other 99% of the tribbles, just so they can have a better time of it themselves, and let the rest be damned, right?! :P Nothing new to see here; please, move on.
Then refusal to justify the blanket claim of superiority:
In spite of the fact that it would simply take 5 minutes to show it's justified confidence, not unjustified arrogance.
are you going to tell me PvErs are more skilled than PvPers?
do you have the knowledge to kill NPCs? hopefully yes.
Do you have the knowledge needed for taking down a player? no you don't. PvPers do, I'm just stating facts and giving you a logical proof, as I really don't care about being an elitist. Try negating this statement.
Another one: a PvP premade can go through elite queues, just like mine used to. PvErs can go through elite queues. PvErs are not able to go against the above premade, and it's a proven fact. just ask in the PvP subforum for the aftermatch screenie.
I need to get to him. I can't just leave him out there alone. - Sometimes you've got to makes sacrifices, Lara. You can't save everyone. - I know about sacrifices. - No, you know about loss. Sacrifice is a choice you make. Loss is a choice made for you. - I can't choose to let him die, Roth.
I agree it is sad that some are willing to engage in simpering, self-abnegating, self-deprecating slave morality and pretenses of false modesty. Modesty is fine, if it's authentic; pretending to be modest in order to impress someone is hypocrisy. Of course, you are free to choose this if you wish, but you are not free to dismiss other perspectives willy-nilly without any cause other than your own bias and not be called on it.
I have no need to be modest about my accomplishments; I am justifiably proud of them and I will not pretend otherwise, but this is by no means the same thing as conceit or arrogance. Am I perfect? No, and I am keenly aware of that, but I also don't start prattling about things I know nothing about, nor do I go about insulting others who know more as a general principle simply because they disagree with me. If and when there is actually a logical argument presented, or empirical evidence, in support of the claim, then I'll give it due consideration. Until then, I don't have to prove my position in order to point out that his position has not been justified by anything he or you or anyone else in this thread has said.
Whether I agree or not, if no justification for the claim is offered and I don't have one myself, then it's mere assertion without sensible foundation; call it an aesthetic preference if you will. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that.
But in fact, I have asked several times for justification and have not received it, nor any alternative solution, but only the same original claim reiterated several times as if repetition is sufficient to establish truth. On the contrary, it's a fallacy (if that word is also too "big" for you, it means "incorrect inference form") known as Petitio Principii or Begging the Question. That you don't seem to understand this, and don't even care, is even sadder. Ignorance is not desirable, but it's not a vice and can be rectified. Willful ignorance, however, ...
lolwut am so srory ah dno't hvae teh edumication ta undrestnad them thair big wurds thair.
Oh, and he doesn't owe you jack ****. Nor does anyone else. You don't like the "evidence"? Fine. But no! By all means continue to educate the poor, poor masses to your superiority and why opposing thoughts should be silenced.
I thought "highly educated" people such as yourself would encourage the free exchange of thoughts and ideas instead of suppressing them.
Here's a thought. Why not turn this into a "teaching" moment where you can use logical discourse examples to encourage communication instead of beating others with a stick over how "right" you are? It's called the "How to not be an @sshat principii".
^^ This is eminently funny, coming from that 1% PvP-ers, wanting to take away from all the other 99% of the tribbles, just so they can have a better time of it themselves, and let the rest be damned, right?! :P Nothing new to see here; please, move on.
I just can't find these mysterious phantoms that you keep on blaming for everything.
You know if you keep telling yourself that you're liable to start believing it. What's more sad is that others might too.
lolwut am so srory ah dno't hvae teh edumication ta undrestnad them thair big wurds thair.
Oh, and he doesn't owe you jack ****. Nor does anyone else.
Here's a ' logical discourse example' for ya: we don't owe the OP jack ****. Nor does anyone else.
The onus is on the OP to make a case as to why he thinks PvE should be nerfed; and then, maybe, just maybe, someone will listen. As it stands, though -- such in contrast to previous complaints about, say, SS3 being over-powered -- I have yet to see any massive gripes from the PvP community about these allegedly horridly debilitating immunity powers. So, in my book, that makes this is a non-issue in PvE as well as PvP.
I just can't find these mysterious phantoms that you keep on blaming for everything.
You know if you keep telling yourself that you're liable to start believing that. What's more sad is that others might too.
Historically, nothing good comes from it.
The point that they are making is that 99% should not have to negotiate on equal terms with 1%.
It is not a conversation until the 1% grows to an appreciable % of the population.
I'm not sure what you mean by phantoms but I'll go on a hunch and say you mean pvpers calling for pve nerfs. If so, just look at the first page of your pvp forums. I see an alarmingly large number of such calls.
Captain Jean-Luc Picard: "We think we've come so far. Torture of heretics, burning of witches, it's all ancient history. Then - before you can blink an eye - suddenly it threatens to start all over again."
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
Here's a ' logical discourse example' for ya: we don't owe the OP jack ****. Nor does anyone else.
The onus is on the OP to make a case as to why he thinks PvE should be nerfed; and then, maybe, just maybe, someone will listen. As it stands, though -- such in contrast to previous complaints about, say, SS3 being over-powered -- I have yet to see any massive gripes from the PvP community about these allegedly horridly debilitating immunity powers. So, in my book, that makes this is a non-issue in PvE as well as PvP.
The point that they are making is that 99% should not have to negotiate on equal terms with 1%.
It is not a conversation until the 1% grows to an appreciable % of the population.
I'm not sure what you mean by phantoms but I'll go on a hunch and say you mean pvpers calling for pve nerfs. If so, just look at the first page of your pvp forums. I see an alarmingly large number of such calls.
You two have taken the OP and twisted it into your own sick, psychotic boogymen arguments. It was an observation about a game play mechanic which he equated to "god-mode ON". One has turned it into their continuing quest to smite the evil PvP monsters and the other is playing sad, sad victim of the same.
So, at the very least it's a thread hijack. At worst it's harassing someone to "shut-up because i said so".
And you two can't even conceive that 1) the few people left that DO pvp don't have *any* magic relationship with the devs to do *anything* and 2) it's been evidenced time and again that Cryptic actually *undermines* PvP on a continual basis. :rolleyes:
No, these two things are antithetical to your biases. No matter how many people present nice, rational arguments, examples or what have you. Admitting that would take away your reason to rage. And I don't suspect either of you really want that because you're having too much fun being victims of "them people".
Just what's with the usual players that insist on acting like being bad at the game is as good as being good at the game? Just accept that and move on, and stop pretending like you know enough on the immunities topic to provide constructive feedback. Since page 1 it has escalated in another rage war against a small number of players because of pvp illuminati secret government of nerfs.
You need immunities to survive a PvE? No you don't.
If the answer is "Yes I do" then you have a problem, and the comments you make on that regard have zero value.
It's like the Surgical Strikes nerf. Shall I bring up the SS3 nerf topic? Yes I will.
Stage 0: Fix appeared on Tribble Patch notes.
Stage 1: PvErs started complaining.
Stage 2: Borticus wrote a post in which he explained SS3 was overperforming as demonstrated by their own metrics.
Stage 3: PvErs KEPT complaining against PvPers even after the official dev response on the topic, daring to say to ignore their metrics and keep it the way it was!
Since I've witnessed that, I have zero, below the ground regard of what 90% of PvErs have to add on any topic. Even less of meltdown wall of texts aimed to prove a fallacious and senseless point.
I need to get to him. I can't just leave him out there alone. - Sometimes you've got to makes sacrifices, Lara. You can't save everyone. - I know about sacrifices. - No, you know about loss. Sacrifice is a choice you make. Loss is a choice made for you. - I can't choose to let him die, Roth.
You two have taken the OP and twisted it into your own sick, psychotic boogymen arguments.
And we're the one raging, right?! :P
Truth simply remains, that when 1% of the player base asks for nerfs that adversely affect the other 99%, said 1% is almost always, per definition, unreasonable. And since these situational, short 'immunities' hardly impact PvE at all, I suggest we simply leave things 'as is.'
Truth simply remains, that when 1% of the player base asks for nerfs that adversely affect the other 99%, said 1% is almost always, per definition, unreasonable. And since these situational, short 'immunities' hardly impact PvE at all, I suggest we simply leave things 'as is.'
If they hardly impact PvE at all, what would be so hard in implementing a hard CD on them? Or even changing them to high Def/Res?
Again, that "1%" (PvP) doesn't have, nor does it get, the ear of the Devs. They've proven time and time again to not even regard PvP in designing abilities. So, logically, if anything does get nerfed - it's because it's overperforming.
lolwut am so srory ah dno't hvae teh edumication ta undrestnad them thair big wurds thair.
Oh, and he doesn't owe you jack ****. Nor does anyone else. You don't like the "evidence"? Fine. But no! By all means continue to educate the poor, poor masses to your superiority and why opposing thoughts should be silenced.
I thought "highly educated" people such as yourself would encourage the free exchange of thoughts and ideas instead of suppressing them.
Here's a thought. Why not turn this into a "teaching" moment where you can use logical discourse examples to encourage communication instead of beating others with a stick over how "right" you are? It's called the "How to not be an @sshat principle".
Now let me give you something to think about, the same thing I have pointed out repeatedly:
He has NOT given any evidence, so there's no evidence for me to like or dislike.
I have no desire to silence his view. On the contrary I have asked, repeatedly, for some justification and/or alternative, but he has provided none. Until and unless he does, the claim amounts to nothing more or less than "I don't like it this way, so you should change it by decreasing it, but I won't say how much you should decrease it, how much is too much to decrease it, how much is not enough to decrease it."
There's plenty of stuff I don't like, too, but mere preference is not justification for pushing the desired change on everyone else. Indeed, pushing your desired change to benefit PvP on everyone else is especially unjustified when 1. "pure" PvPers in this game are non-existent (because you MUST PvE in order to get to a level at which you can even hope to contend in PvP) and those who primarily PvP in this game are a tiny minority of the players, 2. most people don't see the supposed need for this proposed change (what proposed change, exactly, since there's no alternative offered?), and 3. most people don't want this proposed change. If you were willing to 1. not be obnoxious, 2. actually consider the questions which have been asked, 3. make a genuine effort to answer the questions, and 4. admit that this desired nerf should not affect PvE, as someone else suggested, then maybe you would have more credibility and experience less hostility.
But as I stated above, I do PvP. I don't live for PvP the way some people do, but I do enjoy it from time to time. So I want to know why and what, and as a PvPer, I'm more than entitled to demand such, because the nerf would still affect me.
Again, what is the EXACT change desired if the questionable 28 seconds of every minute is "too long"? 27 seconds of every minute? 25? 20? 15? 10? 5? 1? All we've heard so far is "the way it is is too long." So how much is not too long? How much is acceptable? Even this simple question has not received any answer.
So stop your pretense of being persecuted or silenced or whatever it is you think is being done to you, and you or he or someone either put up or shut up, because nobody is going to take you seriously if you can't even give a justification for your claim or an alternative to the way the situation is currently.
Alas, the discussion has already been soured by attitudes like yours, so I think I too will retire from this thread before I dispense with the limited courtesy I have used in communicating with you up to my last post and become brutally honest with you. The OP, at least, has not come across as a wilfully ignorant and obnoxious brat in communicating with me, but he still hasn't given the justification or alternative which is NECESSARY for any meaningful discussion on this subject. I'll therefore dispense with even reading this thread and instead leave my vote as "No." 'Cause, you see, if any reasonable justification had been offered, and/or if any suggestion as to how much nerf should be applied had been offered, then I would have something to consider, but as it is, all I've gotten is repetition of the claim without justification or alternative from the OP, and aggressive insolence from you.
Pretending that "I don't like it" is somehow a justification for calling for "it" to be changed, and not just for you, but for everyone, is ludicrous, and insulting me because I dare to point out that no justification or alternative has been offered is simply not going to change my mind, but rather is more likely to alienate me and turn me off the idea entirely. It's also likely to do the same to others who are reading the thread. Guess what? You've succeeded in that, on multiple counts.
So, NO, immunity is NOT out-of-hand, and should NOT be nerfed. Thanks for helping me decide against you by being ... Well, anyway, I'm out.
Truth simply remains, that when 1% of the player base asks for nerfs that adversely affect the other 99%, said 1% is almost always, per definition, unreasonable. And since these situational, short 'immunities' hardly impact PvE at all, I suggest we simply leave things 'as is.'
And, so, exactly HOW do you know that he's in this mysterious 1% cabal? Did you go over to his house and check his PvP tattoo? Could it be, instead, that he just wants to highlight something that seems a bit too "handholding" in gameplay and could negatively impact things for those PvE'rs who want to play something other than Candyland?
Or, could it instead be your own reactionary knee-jerk bias?
Now let me give you something to think about, the same thing I have pointed out repeatedly:
He has NOT given any evidence, so there's no evidence for me to like or dislike.
I have no desire to silence his view. On the contrary I have asked, repeatedly, for some justification and/or alternative, but he has provided none. Until and unless he does, the claim amounts to nothing more or less than "I don't like it this way, so you should change it by decreasing it, but I won't say how much you should decrease it, how much is too much to decrease it, how much is not enough to decrease it."
I have, repeatedly. Both evidence and alternatives. But, maybe I'm just misunderstanding you - what kind of evidence are you looking for?
If they hardly impact PvE at all, what would be so hard in implementing a hard CD on them? Or even changing them to high Def/Res?.
Because Rep powers were already gravely nerfed during what I call 'The Desolation of Hawk' (aka, the Great Rep nerf of Season 8, was it?). Last thing we need is to have those on a shared CD too. Especially since it's pretty much a non-issue in PvE to begin with.
Extra ResAll would be nice; but, as others have already pointed out, too much of that creates just another form of immunity. But if it ever came to that, put me down for [+ResAll].
Again, that "1%" (PvP) doesn't have, nor does it get, the ear of the Devs. They've proven time and time again to not even regard PvP in designing abilities. So, logically, if anything does get nerfed - it's because it's overperforming.
We could talk 'echo chambers' all day long; but, ironically, we weren't today. For one, because you seem to be the only PvP-ers I've seen so far to whom these immunities were an unsurmountable issue (unlike the matter of SS3); so I simply think the Devs will just ignore it. Nevertheless, as a PvE-er, I always remain vigilent in ensuring PvE doesn't get nerfed on behest of PvP.
Now let me give you something to think about, the same thing I have pointed out repeatedly:
He has NOT given any evidence, so there's no evidence for me to like or dislike.
I have no desire to silence his view. On the contrary I have asked, repeatedly, for some justification and/or alternative, but he has provided none. Until and unless he does, the claim amounts to nothing more or less than "I don't like it this way, so you should change it by decreasing it, but I won't say how much you should decrease it, how much is too much to decrease it, how much is not enough to decrease it."
There's plenty of stuff I don't like, too, but mere preference is not justification for pushing the desired change on everyone else. Indeed, pushing your desired change to benefit PvP on everyone else is especially unjustified when 1. "pure" PvPers in this game are non-existent (because you MUST PvE in order to get to a level at which you can even hope to contend in PvP) and those who primarily PvP in this game are a tiny minority of the players, 2. most people don't see the supposed need for this proposed change (what proposed change, exactly, since there's no alternative offered?), and 3. most people don't want this proposed change. If you were willing to 1. not be obnoxious, 2. actually consider the questions which have been asked, 3. make a genuine effort to answer the questions, and 4. admit that this desired nerf should not affect PvE, as someone else suggested, then maybe you would have more credibility and experience less hostility.
But as I stated above, I do PvP. I don't live for PvP the way some people do, but I do enjoy it from time to time. So I want to know why and what, and as a PvPer, I'm more than entitled to demand such, because the nerf would still affect me.
Again, what is the EXACT change desired if the questionable 28 seconds of every minute is "too long"? 27 seconds of every minute? 25? 20? 15? 10? 5? 1? All we've heard so far is "the way it is is too long." So how much is not too long? How much is acceptable? Even this simple question has not received any answer.
So stop your pretense of being persecuted or silenced or whatever it is you think is being done to you, and you or he or someone either put up or shut up, because nobody is going to take you seriously if you can't even give a justification for your claim or an alternative to the way the situation is currently.
Alas, the discussion has already been soured by attitudes like yours, so I think I too will retire from this thread before I dispense with the limited courtesy I have used in communicating with you up to my last post and become brutally honest with you. The OP, at least, has not come across as a wilfully ignorant and obnoxious brat in communicating with me, but he still hasn't given the justification or alternative which is NECESSARY for any meaningful discussion on this subject. I'll therefore dispense with even reading this thread and instead leave my vote as "No." 'Cause, you see, if any reasonable justification had been offered, and/or if any suggestion as to how much nerf should be applied had been offered, then I would have something to consider, but as it is, all I've gotten is repetition of the claim without justification or alternative from the OP, and aggressive insolence from you.
Pretending that "I don't like it" is somehow a justification for calling for "it" to be changed, and not just for you, but for everyone, is ludicrous, and insulting me because I dare to point out that no justification or alternative has been offered is simply not going to change my mind, but rather is more likely to alienate me and turn me off the idea entirely. It's also likely to do the same to others who are reading the thread. Guess what? You've succeeded in that, on multiple counts.
So, NO, immunity is NOT out-of-hand, and should NOT be nerfed. Thanks for helping me decide against you by being ... Well, anyway, I'm out.
And, so, exactly HOW do you know that he's in this mysterious 1% cabal? Did you go over to his house and check his PvP tattoo??
No, LOL, his PvP footprint (rather than a tattoo) is all over this forum. I'm fair certain even praxl5 himself would not be so silly as to deny he's a PvP-er.
Now let me give you something to think about, the same thing I have pointed out repeatedly:
He has NOT given any evidence, so there's no evidence for me to like or dislike.
I have no desire to silence his view. On the contrary I have asked, repeatedly, for some justification and/or alternative, but he has provided none. Until and unless he does, the claim amounts to nothing more or less than "I don't like it this way, so you should change it by decreasing it, but I won't say how much you should decrease it, how much is too much to decrease it, how much is not enough to decrease it."
There's plenty of stuff I don't like, too, but mere preference is not justification for pushing the desired change on everyone else. Indeed, pushing your desired change to benefit PvP on everyone else is especially unjustified when 1. "pure" PvPers in this game are non-existent (because you MUST PvE in order to get to a level at which you can even hope to contend in PvP) and those who primarily PvP in this game are a tiny minority of the players, 2. most people don't see the supposed need for this proposed change (what proposed change, exactly, since there's no alternative offered?), and 3. most people don't want this proposed change. If you were willing to 1. not be obnoxious, 2. actually consider the questions which have been asked, 3. make a genuine effort to answer the questions, and 4. admit that this desired nerf should not affect PvE, as someone else suggested, then maybe you would have more credibility and experience less hostility.
But as I stated above, I do PvP. I don't live for PvP the way some people do, but I do enjoy it from time to time. So I want to know why and what, and as a PvPer, I'm more than entitled to demand such, because the nerf would still affect me.
Again, what is the EXACT change desired if the questionable 28 seconds of every minute is "too long"? 27 seconds of every minute? 25? 20? 15? 10? 5? 1? All we've heard so far is "the way it is is too long." So how much is not too long? How much is acceptable? Even this simple question has not received any answer.
So stop your pretense of being persecuted or silenced or whatever it is you think is being done to you, and you or he or someone either put up or shut up, because nobody is going to take you seriously if you can't even give a justification for your claim or an alternative to the way the situation is currently.
Alas, the discussion has already been soured by attitudes like yours, so I think I too will retire from this thread before I dispense with the limited courtesy I have used in communicating with you up to my last post and become brutally honest with you. The OP, at least, has not come across as a wilfully ignorant and obnoxious brat in communicating with me, but he still hasn't given the justification or alternative which is NECESSARY for any meaningful discussion on this subject. I'll therefore dispense with even reading this thread and instead leave my vote as "No." 'Cause, you see, if any reasonable justification had been offered, and/or if any suggestion as to how much nerf should be applied had been offered, then I would have something to consider, but as it is, all I've gotten is repetition of the claim without justification or alternative from the OP, and aggressive insolence from you.
Pretending that "I don't like it" is somehow a justification for calling for "it" to be changed, and not just for you, but for everyone, is ludicrous, and insulting me because I dare to point out that no justification or alternative has been offered is simply not going to change my mind, but rather is more likely to alienate me and turn me off the idea entirely. It's also likely to do the same to others who are reading the thread. Guess what? You've succeeded in that, on multiple counts.
So, NO, immunity is NOT out-of-hand, and should NOT be nerfed. Thanks for helping me decide against you by being ... Well, anyway, I'm out.
Hmm I saw a justification for why he thought it should be changed.
Chaining of immunity defeats the purpose of the way some pve maps are designed to be challenging.
Also saw an alternative way for those powers to work so they are still useful but not "god mode" as he put it. What more explanation are you wanting? Looked pretty clear to me.
Because Rep powers were already gravely nerfed during what I call 'The Desolation of Hawk' (aka, the Great Rep nerf of Season 8, was it?). Last thing we need is to have those on a shared CD too. Especially since it's pretty much a non-issue in PvE to begin with.
Extra ResAll would be nice; but, as others have already pointed out, too much of that creates just another form of immunity. But if it ever came to that, put me down for [+ResAll].
We could talk 'echo chambers' all day long; but, ironically, we weren't today. For one, because you seem to be the only PvP-ers I've seen so far to whom these immunities were an unsurmountable issue (unlike the matter of SS3); so I simply think the Devs will just ignore it. Nevertheless, as a PvE-er, I always remain vigilent in ensuring PvE doesn't get nerfed on behest of PvP.
You can't "ensure pve doesn't get nerfed" anymore then the pvp players you seem to loathe can get get anything nerfed. As I said in another post, devs make the sand box we just play in it.
Because Rep powers were already gravely nerfed during what I call 'The Desolation of Hawk' (aka, the Great Rep nerf of Season 8, was it?). Last thing we need is to have those on a shared CD too. Especially since it's pretty much a non-issue in PvE to begin with.
Extra ResAll would be nice; but, as others have already pointed out, too much of that creates just another form of immunity. But if it ever came to that, put me down for [+ResAll].
We could talk 'echo chambers' all day long; but, ironically, we weren't today. For one, because you seem to be the only PvP-ers I've seen so far to whom these immunities were an unsurmountable issue (unlike the matter of SS3); so I simply think the Devs will just ignore it. Nevertheless, as a PvE-er, I always remain vigilent in ensuring PvE doesn't get nerfed on behest of PvP.
Rep abilities were rightly curtailed - can you imagine the power creep if you had an unlimited number of Rep abilities (both passive and active) to use at once? The difference between a "fresh" player (or even a DR) and an older toon would just be insurmountable.
ResAll would be a good change, since while you still maintain it's effect in PvE, it can be overcome in PvP via -DmgRes abilities and Diminishing Returns would also play a large effect, since anyone worth their salt in PvP is running at least some passive resists.
I don't find immunities insurmountable (though a serious issue) because I play as a Sci. For a Tac, I can easily see how it would be frustrating - to time your Alpha perfectly, only to have someone not just defend against it, but to totally (and easily) negate it. Even as a Sci, I find it quite frustrating - to have something like Destabilizing Resonance Beam come off of it's high CD, only to have someone be totally immune to it's effect. Or to line up to a GW/EWP combo, and then have someone walk it off.
SS3 was insurmountable - but, let's not forget, it's not the dastardly PvPers that got it fixed. The Devs themselves said it was overperforming. And, looking at their history, that's totally in line with what they do. Release something OP, wait for sales, and then say "Ooops, we didn't know it was that powerful, sry!" and then reign it in.
No, LOL, his PvP footprint (rather than a tattoo) is all over this forum. I'm fair certain even praxl5 himself would not be so silly as to deny he's a PvP-er.
I primarily PvP, for sure. But in the recent months, I have PvE'd far, far more than I have PvP'd. By a ratio of at least 3:1. I have "PvE" and "PvE DPS/CC" loadouts on both of my most played toons and even run in the DPS channels - so it's not like I don't play PvE or don't know what's going on there. At what point am I branded as a PvEer that wants balance/also has PvP interests?
Besides, I didn't get a tattoo, I got this nice ring from the evul league of Evul Playur Killahs...it came in the mail with my keyfob Developer Mind Control Device.
No, LOL, his PvP footprint (rather than a tattoo) is all over this forum. I'm fair certain even praxl5 himself would not be so silly as to deny he's a PvP-er.
No, I'm pretty sure you'll find a 666 mark on his body somewhere if you look hard enough. :rolleyes:
I'm sure I would, if I'd be inclined to look. :P None of which changes the fact that praxl5 is a PvP-er, really.
I've played, at a minimum, 3 times more PvE than PvP in the recent months.
I have at least 2 different PvE loadouts (CC and DPS) on both of my main toons.
My Tac doesn't even have a PvP loadout or spec, it's entirely PvE focused. Admittedly, I don't even come close to a min/maxer - I've got 3 TacTeams on that ship, only 3/4 of the Pilot spec without a single point in Intel, and most of my weapons have an [Acc] or even [Dmg] mod, because they were cheap :P
I play in the DPS channels, and if my math is correct, within the top 10% (7.33%, if my math is correct. 536/7313).
I won't deny that I PvP, but at what point do I become someone who PvEs, but also has an interest in balanced gameplay throughout the game, while also with a heavy interest in PvP?
The proposed +ResAll (heck, or even +ResX, for whatever is hitting you at the time) or +Def maintains it's function in PvE, while allowing counters in PvP.
Comments
Well, I just learned enough to no longer give a tribble as to what you think. Back to popcorn munching for me.
I agree it is sad that some are willing to engage in simpering, self-abnegating, self-deprecating slave morality and pretenses of false modesty. Modesty is fine, if it's authentic; pretending to be modest in order to impress someone is hypocrisy. Of course, you are free to choose this if you wish, but you are not free to dismiss other perspectives willy-nilly without any cause other than your own bias and not be called on it.
I have no need to be modest about my accomplishments; I am justifiably proud of them and I will not pretend otherwise, but this is by no means the same thing as conceit or arrogance. Am I perfect? No, and I am keenly aware of that, but I also don't start prattling about things I know nothing about, nor do I go about insulting others who know more as a general principle simply because they disagree with me. If and when there is actually a logical argument presented, or empirical evidence, in support of the claim, then I'll give it due consideration. Until then, I don't have to prove my position in order to point out that his position has not been justified by anything he or you or anyone else in this thread has said.
Whether I agree or not, if no justification for the claim is offered and I don't have one myself, then it's mere assertion without sensible foundation; call it an aesthetic preference if you will. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that.
But in fact, I have asked several times for justification and have not received it, nor any alternative solution, but only the same original claim reiterated several times as if repetition is sufficient to establish truth. On the contrary, it's a fallacy (if that word is also too "big" for you, it means "incorrect inference form") known as Petitio Principii or Begging the Question. That you don't seem to understand this, and don't even care, is even sadder. Ignorance is not desirable, but it's not a vice and can be rectified. Willful ignorance, however, ...
Not giving a tribble about what anyone else thinks is the entire problem - it's antithetical to the entire idea of communication.
It's just this bias, expertly displayed OVER and OVER again, which I commented on oh-so many posts ago that was just sad.
When someone does that, they don't want to have a conversation, they want things *their* way and reflexively shut-out others who don't agree with them.
^^ This is eminently funny, coming from that 1% PvP-ers, wanting to take away from all the other 99% of the tribbles, just so they can have a better time of it themselves, and let the rest be damned, right?! :P Nothing new to see here; please, move on.
are you going to tell me PvErs are more skilled than PvPers?
do you have the knowledge to kill NPCs? hopefully yes.
Do you have the knowledge needed for taking down a player? no you don't. PvPers do, I'm just stating facts and giving you a logical proof, as I really don't care about being an elitist. Try negating this statement.
Another one: a PvP premade can go through elite queues, just like mine used to. PvErs can go through elite queues. PvErs are not able to go against the above premade, and it's a proven fact. just ask in the PvP subforum for the aftermatch screenie.
lolwut am so srory ah dno't hvae teh edumication ta undrestnad them thair big wurds thair.
Oh, and he doesn't owe you jack ****. Nor does anyone else. You don't like the "evidence"? Fine. But no! By all means continue to educate the poor, poor masses to your superiority and why opposing thoughts should be silenced.
I thought "highly educated" people such as yourself would encourage the free exchange of thoughts and ideas instead of suppressing them.
Here's a thought. Why not turn this into a "teaching" moment where you can use logical discourse examples to encourage communication instead of beating others with a stick over how "right" you are? It's called the "How to not be an @sshat principii".
I just can't find these mysterious phantoms that you keep on blaming for everything.
You know if you keep telling yourself that you're liable to start believing it. What's more sad is that others might too.
Historically, nothing good comes from it.
Here's a ' logical discourse example' for ya: we don't owe the OP jack ****. Nor does anyone else.
The onus is on the OP to make a case as to why he thinks PvE should be nerfed; and then, maybe, just maybe, someone will listen. As it stands, though -- such in contrast to previous complaints about, say, SS3 being over-powered -- I have yet to see any massive gripes from the PvP community about these allegedly horridly debilitating immunity powers. So, in my book, that makes this is a non-issue in PvE as well as PvP.
The point that they are making is that 99% should not have to negotiate on equal terms with 1%.
It is not a conversation until the 1% grows to an appreciable % of the population.
I'm not sure what you mean by phantoms but I'll go on a hunch and say you mean pvpers calling for pve nerfs. If so, just look at the first page of your pvp forums. I see an alarmingly large number of such calls.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
I never blamed my Phantom for anything. :P (I blamed Bort for nerfing my Phantom, but that's another matter)
You two have taken the OP and twisted it into your own sick, psychotic boogymen arguments. It was an observation about a game play mechanic which he equated to "god-mode ON". One has turned it into their continuing quest to smite the evil PvP monsters and the other is playing sad, sad victim of the same.
So, at the very least it's a thread hijack. At worst it's harassing someone to "shut-up because i said so".
And you two can't even conceive that 1) the few people left that DO pvp don't have *any* magic relationship with the devs to do *anything* and 2) it's been evidenced time and again that Cryptic actually *undermines* PvP on a continual basis. :rolleyes:
No, these two things are antithetical to your biases. No matter how many people present nice, rational arguments, examples or what have you. Admitting that would take away your reason to rage. And I don't suspect either of you really want that because you're having too much fun being victims of "them people".
I hope you weren't too sad that you couldn't lay blame for that on the lap of some poor PvP'r. :P
You need immunities to survive a PvE? No you don't.
If the answer is "Yes I do" then you have a problem, and the comments you make on that regard have zero value.
It's like the Surgical Strikes nerf. Shall I bring up the SS3 nerf topic? Yes I will.
Stage 0: Fix appeared on Tribble Patch notes.
Stage 1: PvErs started complaining.
Stage 2: Borticus wrote a post in which he explained SS3 was overperforming as demonstrated by their own metrics.
Stage 3: PvErs KEPT complaining against PvPers even after the official dev response on the topic, daring to say to ignore their metrics and keep it the way it was!
Since I've witnessed that, I have zero, below the ground regard of what 90% of PvErs have to add on any topic. Even less of meltdown wall of texts aimed to prove a fallacious and senseless point.
And we're the one raging, right?! :P
Truth simply remains, that when 1% of the player base asks for nerfs that adversely affect the other 99%, said 1% is almost always, per definition, unreasonable. And since these situational, short 'immunities' hardly impact PvE at all, I suggest we simply leave things 'as is.'
If they hardly impact PvE at all, what would be so hard in implementing a hard CD on them? Or even changing them to high Def/Res?
Again, that "1%" (PvP) doesn't have, nor does it get, the ear of the Devs. They've proven time and time again to not even regard PvP in designing abilities. So, logically, if anything does get nerfed - it's because it's overperforming.
Now let me give you something to think about, the same thing I have pointed out repeatedly:
He has NOT given any evidence, so there's no evidence for me to like or dislike.
I have no desire to silence his view. On the contrary I have asked, repeatedly, for some justification and/or alternative, but he has provided none. Until and unless he does, the claim amounts to nothing more or less than "I don't like it this way, so you should change it by decreasing it, but I won't say how much you should decrease it, how much is too much to decrease it, how much is not enough to decrease it."
There's plenty of stuff I don't like, too, but mere preference is not justification for pushing the desired change on everyone else. Indeed, pushing your desired change to benefit PvP on everyone else is especially unjustified when 1. "pure" PvPers in this game are non-existent (because you MUST PvE in order to get to a level at which you can even hope to contend in PvP) and those who primarily PvP in this game are a tiny minority of the players, 2. most people don't see the supposed need for this proposed change (what proposed change, exactly, since there's no alternative offered?), and 3. most people don't want this proposed change. If you were willing to 1. not be obnoxious, 2. actually consider the questions which have been asked, 3. make a genuine effort to answer the questions, and 4. admit that this desired nerf should not affect PvE, as someone else suggested, then maybe you would have more credibility and experience less hostility.
But as I stated above, I do PvP. I don't live for PvP the way some people do, but I do enjoy it from time to time. So I want to know why and what, and as a PvPer, I'm more than entitled to demand such, because the nerf would still affect me.
Again, what is the EXACT change desired if the questionable 28 seconds of every minute is "too long"? 27 seconds of every minute? 25? 20? 15? 10? 5? 1? All we've heard so far is "the way it is is too long." So how much is not too long? How much is acceptable? Even this simple question has not received any answer.
So stop your pretense of being persecuted or silenced or whatever it is you think is being done to you, and you or he or someone either put up or shut up, because nobody is going to take you seriously if you can't even give a justification for your claim or an alternative to the way the situation is currently.
Alas, the discussion has already been soured by attitudes like yours, so I think I too will retire from this thread before I dispense with the limited courtesy I have used in communicating with you up to my last post and become brutally honest with you. The OP, at least, has not come across as a wilfully ignorant and obnoxious brat in communicating with me, but he still hasn't given the justification or alternative which is NECESSARY for any meaningful discussion on this subject. I'll therefore dispense with even reading this thread and instead leave my vote as "No." 'Cause, you see, if any reasonable justification had been offered, and/or if any suggestion as to how much nerf should be applied had been offered, then I would have something to consider, but as it is, all I've gotten is repetition of the claim without justification or alternative from the OP, and aggressive insolence from you.
Pretending that "I don't like it" is somehow a justification for calling for "it" to be changed, and not just for you, but for everyone, is ludicrous, and insulting me because I dare to point out that no justification or alternative has been offered is simply not going to change my mind, but rather is more likely to alienate me and turn me off the idea entirely. It's also likely to do the same to others who are reading the thread. Guess what? You've succeeded in that, on multiple counts.
So, NO, immunity is NOT out-of-hand, and should NOT be nerfed. Thanks for helping me decide against you by being ... Well, anyway, I'm out.
And, so, exactly HOW do you know that he's in this mysterious 1% cabal? Did you go over to his house and check his PvP tattoo? Could it be, instead, that he just wants to highlight something that seems a bit too "handholding" in gameplay and could negatively impact things for those PvE'rs who want to play something other than Candyland?
Or, could it instead be your own reactionary knee-jerk bias?
I have, repeatedly. Both evidence and alternatives. But, maybe I'm just misunderstanding you - what kind of evidence are you looking for?
Because Rep powers were already gravely nerfed during what I call 'The Desolation of Hawk' (aka, the Great Rep nerf of Season 8, was it?). Last thing we need is to have those on a shared CD too. Especially since it's pretty much a non-issue in PvE to begin with.
Extra ResAll would be nice; but, as others have already pointed out, too much of that creates just another form of immunity. But if it ever came to that, put me down for [+ResAll].
We could talk 'echo chambers' all day long; but, ironically, we weren't today.
Forum PvP is OP. Plz nerf.
Go get them evul windmills!
No, LOL, his PvP footprint (rather than a tattoo) is all over this forum. I'm fair certain even praxl5 himself would not be so silly as to deny he's a PvP-er.
Hmm I saw a justification for why he thought it should be changed.
Chaining of immunity defeats the purpose of the way some pve maps are designed to be challenging.
Also saw an alternative way for those powers to work so they are still useful but not "god mode" as he put it. What more explanation are you wanting? Looked pretty clear to me.
Vanilla Ground PvP information
You can't "ensure pve doesn't get nerfed" anymore then the pvp players you seem to loathe can get get anything nerfed. As I said in another post, devs make the sand box we just play in it.
Vanilla Ground PvP information
Rep abilities were rightly curtailed - can you imagine the power creep if you had an unlimited number of Rep abilities (both passive and active) to use at once? The difference between a "fresh" player (or even a DR) and an older toon would just be insurmountable.
ResAll would be a good change, since while you still maintain it's effect in PvE, it can be overcome in PvP via -DmgRes abilities and Diminishing Returns would also play a large effect, since anyone worth their salt in PvP is running at least some passive resists.
I don't find immunities insurmountable (though a serious issue) because I play as a Sci. For a Tac, I can easily see how it would be frustrating - to time your Alpha perfectly, only to have someone not just defend against it, but to totally (and easily) negate it. Even as a Sci, I find it quite frustrating - to have something like Destabilizing Resonance Beam come off of it's high CD, only to have someone be totally immune to it's effect. Or to line up to a GW/EWP combo, and then have someone walk it off.
SS3 was insurmountable - but, let's not forget, it's not the dastardly PvPers that got it fixed. The Devs themselves said it was overperforming. And, looking at their history, that's totally in line with what they do. Release something OP, wait for sales, and then say "Ooops, we didn't know it was that powerful, sry!" and then reign it in.
I primarily PvP, for sure. But in the recent months, I have PvE'd far, far more than I have PvP'd. By a ratio of at least 3:1. I have "PvE" and "PvE DPS/CC" loadouts on both of my most played toons and even run in the DPS channels - so it's not like I don't play PvE or don't know what's going on there. At what point am I branded as a PvEer that wants balance/also has PvP interests?
I think mine got lost in the mail.
No, I'm pretty sure you'll find a 666 mark on his body somewhere if you look hard enough. :rolleyes:
I'm sure I would, if I'd be inclined to look. :P None of which changes the fact that praxl5 is a PvP-er, really.
I've played, at a minimum, 3 times more PvE than PvP in the recent months.
I have at least 2 different PvE loadouts (CC and DPS) on both of my main toons.
My Tac doesn't even have a PvP loadout or spec, it's entirely PvE focused. Admittedly, I don't even come close to a min/maxer - I've got 3 TacTeams on that ship, only 3/4 of the Pilot spec without a single point in Intel, and most of my weapons have an [Acc] or even [Dmg] mod, because they were cheap :P
I play in the DPS channels, and if my math is correct, within the top 10% (7.33%, if my math is correct. 536/7313).
I won't deny that I PvP, but at what point do I become someone who PvEs, but also has an interest in balanced gameplay throughout the game, while also with a heavy interest in PvP?
The proposed +ResAll (heck, or even +ResX, for whatever is hitting you at the time) or +Def maintains it's function in PvE, while allowing counters in PvP.